Mona Baker & Gabriela Saldanha. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (2nd edition)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Page404

titleconsistsoftheFinnishandSwedishwordsfor‘translator/thetranslator’).

ThisismostlyinFinnish,butoccasionallycarriesarticlesinotherlanguages.It

wasawardedtheFITJournalPrizefor1988–90.

TheSKTLalsoawardsprizes:theAgricolaPrizeforanoutstandingtranslation

ofproseordrama,theJ.A.HolloPrizeforoneofanonfictionwork,andthe

UljasAttilaAwardforpromotinginterpretingorthestatusofinterpretersin

society.Translatorsarealsoeligibleforgrantsbyvariousstate,libraryand

privatefoundations.

ThelegalrightsoftranslatorsareexceptionallywellregulatedinFinland.

Translators(andtheirdescendants)havebeenprotectedbyFinnishcopyright

lawsince1829.Copyrightlegislationhasbeendevelopedincooperationwith

otherNordiccountries.Manytranslatorsworkfreelance,andmanyparttime

only.Inspiteofanamplesupplyofprofessionals,translationsalsocontinueto

becommissionedfromnonprofessionalsonanadhocbasis.Becausethereare

notenoughnativespeakersofspecifictargetlanguages–otherthanSwedish–

workingfromFinnish,Finnsoftenneedtotranslateintoaforeignlanguage.

Beforetheschoolsoftranslationstudieswerefounded,researchontranslation

wassporadic,mostlyundertakenasanoffshootactivityofdepartmentsof

literatureorphilology,anddealingalmostexclusivelywithliterarytranslation.

Morerecently,however,morediverseareasofresearchhavestartedto

flourish.Areasofspecializationincludeinterpretingandcognitiveprocessing

(Turku),generaltheory,terminologyandchildren’sliterature(Tampere),think

aloudprotocolstudiesandassessment(Savonlinna),continuingtrainingand

assessment(Kouvola).Theschoolsoftranslationstudiesalsorunseveral

publicationseries.

Finnishresearchincomputationallinguisticsandmachinetranslationhasmade

dramaticprogressinrecentyears.Researchhasfocusedontermidentification

andretrieval,disambiguation,parsingofextensivecorpora,Finnish–English

machinetranslation,machinetranslationaidsandhandheldelectronic

dictionaries(Brace1994).

Furtherreading

Kovala1985;Sorvali1985;Aaltonen1986;Lehto1986;Ollikainenand

Pulakka1987;Sandbacka1987;Majamaa1991.

ANDREWCHESTERMAN

Frenchtradition

PriortothelateMiddleAges,translationinFrancecannotbeseeninisolation

fromtheLATINTRADITIONofWesternEurope.Thoughtranslationinto

vernacularlanguagesbeganintheeleventhcenturyinEurope,thefirst

translationsintoOldFrenchdidnotappearuntilthethirteenthcentury.Before

then,translationwascarriedoutintoLatinandwasusuallyundertakenin

monasteries.Duringtheeleventhandtwelfthcenturies,translation–bothinto

Latinandintothevernacular–ofArabicphilosophicalandscientificwritings

andofAncientGreekworksandtheirrelatedcommentarieswasundertakenby

theToledoSchool(seeSPANISHTRADITION).Thisschoolisgenerallyseen

asprovidingaturningpointinthehistoryoftranslationintheWest,whichhad

begunwithtranslationintoclassicalLatin.VulgarLatin,thelanguagefromwhich

theromancelanguagesandsubsequentlyFrenchevolved,wastobecomethe

targetlanguageoftranslation.ThefirstdocumentswritteninOldFrenchare

literaltranslationsofLatinliturgicaltextswhichdatebacktotheninthcentury

(vanHoof1991).

ThefoundationofthefirstuniversitiesinFranceinthethirteenthcenturygave

translationintoFrencharealimpetus.Acenturylater,theuseofOldFrench(as

opposedtoLatin)begantoprevailinadministrativedocuments,butLatin

maintaineditssupremacyasthelanguageofscholarshipuntiltheRenaissance

signalledthedeclineofthegreatLatintradition.However,thiswasaslow

processandtheuseofLatininscientifictranslationslastedwellintothe

eighteenthcentury(Kelly1979).

GuillaumedeLoris’sRomandelaRose(c.1235)includestranslationsofLatin

texts,andVirgil’sAeneidwasalsotranslatedintoOldFrenchinthethirteenth

century.LatintranslationsofArabicmedicaltreatiseswerethemselvesputinto

OldFrench,aswereanumberofchroniclesofFrenchhistorywhichhadbeen

writteninLatin,forexampleHistoricaFrancorum

Page405

byGrégoiredeTourswhichdatesfromthesixthcentury,andthethirteenth

centuryworkHistoriaRegumFrancorum.

UnderthereignofKingCharlesV(1337–80),translationofclassicalworks

wasactivelyencouraged.LatinversionsofAristotle’sworkswereretranslated

intoFrenchbyNicolasOresme(1330–82),oneofthemaintranslatorsatthe

royalcourt.Oresmeissaidtohaveintroducedhundredsofnewtermsinto

Frenchandproducedseveralscientifictranslations;healsomadeinteresting

commentsintheprefacestohistranslationsonsuchissuesasthetaskofthe

translator,theneedforaccuracyandtheintroductionofnewtermsintothe

targetlanguage(Larwill1934).However,thisperiodoflinguisticandintellectual

activitywastobefollowedbydecadesofunrestwhichwerenotconduciveto

translation.Thefewtranslationswhichwereproducedduringthisperiodinclude

thoseofBoccaccio’sDecameron(1485),TitusLivius’sDecades(1486)and

Cicero’sDeOficie’s(1493),togetherwithasmallnumberofscientificworksin

LatinandItalian.TothesecanbeaddedsometranslationsfromotherEuropean

vernacularlanguages.

Thesixteenthcentury:thedevelopmentofFrenchandtranslationofthe

classics

Thesixteenthcenturywitnessedaconsiderableincreaseinthenumberof

translationsduetothestimulatinginfluenceoftheRenaissanceandthe

introductionofprintingtechnology.Renewedinterestintheclassicsledthe

humaniststoreturntooriginalsourcesandbypassmedievalscholasticism,whilst

thesecularizationofknowledgewhichwastriggeredbytheRenaissance

promotedtranslationintothevernacularforanexpandingreadershipwhodid

nothavedirectaccesstoclassicalsources.

Specifictermswerecoinedduringthisperiodtodescribetheprocessof

translation:traduire(totranslate)wasintroducedbyRobertEsperre(1503–

59)onthebasisoftheItaliantraducere,andthehumanistEtienneDolet

(1509–46)wasresponsibleforintroducingtraduction(translation)and

traducteur(translator).DoletisahighlysymbolicfigureinWesterntranslation

history,havingbeenaccusedof‘mistranslating’oneofPlato’sworksandburnt

atthestake.HeiscreditedwiththefirstformulationoftranslationtheoryinLa

manièredebientraduired’unelangueenl’autre(Howtotranslatewellfrom

onelanguageintoanother),whichwaspublishedin1540.Doletcitesfiverules

fortranslation:understandingthemeaningoftheoriginaltext,masteringboth

sourceandtargetlanguages,avoidingwordforwordrenderings,usingthe

speechofordinarypeople,andemployinganappropriatetone.Thefourth

principle,usingthespeechofordinarypeople,canbeseenasaresponsetothe

tendencyofsixteenthcenturyscholarsandLatiniststointroduceneologismsand

Latinstructuresintothevernacular.

Initially,onlyafewtranslatorswereabletoworkdirectlyintoFrenchfrom

Greektexts.TheyincludedThomasSébillet,JeanLalemant,AntoineHéroet

andDelaBoétie.TranslationintoLatinoftenconstitutedanintermediarystage

beforeaFrenchversioncouldbeproduced,asinthecaseofJeanLaxary(or

Lascaris)(1445–1534)andClaudedeSeyssel(d.1520),whoworkedasa

team.Amongtheirvariousjointefforts,LaxarytranslatedXenophon’sGreek

textAnabassis(fourthcenturyBC)intoLatin,andDeSeysselthentranslated

Laxary’sLatinversionintoFrench.

Duringthisperiod,theuseofLatin,thelanguageoftheChurch,wasfirmly

establishedinscienceandtheology,andLatinwasconsequentlythetarget

languageformanytranslations,especiallythosefromotherRomancelanguages,

aswellasGreek,SyriacandHebrew.However,Plutarch’swritingsand

Homer’sIliadwereamongthefewsixteenthcenturytranslationswhichwere

madeintovernacularFrench.SeveraltranslationsofCicero’sworkswerealso

undertakenintoFrench:byAntoineMacault(in1534andagainin1549),Pierre

Saliot(1537),JehanColin(1537)andEtienneDolet(c.1542).

TherewerealsonumeroustranslationsfromItalianduringthisperiod.Both

Marot(in1544)andPeletier(in1547)translatedPetrarch’sSonnets.

TranslationsfromlanguagesotherthanclassicalandRomancelanguageswere

restrictedtoEnglishandGermanicworks,perhapsthemostimportantbeing

FrançoisBaudoin’stranslationofFrancisBacon’sEssays.

Translationwaspartlyperceivedasameansofdisseminatingknowledgetoa

wideraudience,andinthisrespecttranslatorsassumedtwo